Showing 1–50 of 107 items published in April 2019, most recent first.
In Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, the federal government asked for broad policy immunity to shield choices by the Tennessee Valley Authority about the safety measures the TVA employed when stringing a power line across a river.
Yesterday a unanimous court ruled in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority that the TVA can generally be sued for personal-injury claims, and sent the case back for the lower court to determine whether this particular claim can proceed. Gregory Sisk analyzes the opinion for this blog.
Briefly: Adam Liptak visits The New York Times’ podcast The Daily to talk about Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census that is “the biggest case in front of the Supreme Court this session.” At
The justices issued orders today from last week’s private conference. They did not add any new cases to their merits docket for next term.
In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly reviews the latest SCOTUS news before providing deeper coverage with Kimberly Robinson of last week’s oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, a high-profile challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the April 26 conference and its opinion in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority. The transcript is available below and at this link. […]
The Supreme Court released orders from the April 26 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. On Monday, the justices released their opinion in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who turns 71 this year, dismissed talk of his retirement from the Supreme Court during an appearance at Pepperdine University School of Law’s Annual Dinner on March 30. “I’m not retiring,” he declared in response to a question about his hypothetical retirement party years
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes, the constitutionality of an “information-seeking” police stop, the particularized-nexus requirement for probable cause, and whether a dog-sniff in the common area of an apartment building is a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Yesterday’s argument in what appeared to be a relatively routine Armed Career Criminal Act case (see my preview here), developed into a fascinating discussion among the justices about statutory interpretation, led by Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.
At The Economist, Steven Mazie discusses Tuesday’s oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, concluding that “the five conservatives have a clear—if fraught—path to
Oyez has posted the aligned audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis Department of Commerce v. New York Mitchell v. Wisconsin Rehaif v. United States Quarles v. United States Taggart v.Lorenzen
It was a far cry from the census case or deep disagreement about proper methods of capital punishment, but the justices heard oral argument yesterday afternoon in Taggart v. Lorenzen, concluding the argument calendars for October Term 2018.
Of the three arbitration cases on the Supreme Court’s docket this term, two were decided unanimously in decisions issued relatively soon after argument.
Today the Supreme Court refused to block the execution of John William King, who was scheduled to die by lethal injection tonight for the 1998 murder of James Byrd Jr. Byrd, who was African-American, was the victim of a gruesome crime that spurred tougher hate-crime laws.
Yesterday the court ruled 5-4 in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela that the Federal Arbitration Act bars interpretation of an arbitration agreement under state law that would allow class arbitration based on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.
As explained by Ronald Mann, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed as improvidently granted the case of Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian.
Tuesday afternoon’s oral argument in Rehaif v. United States was not, as a formal matter, about the well-known “felon-in-possession” provision of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2).
Today the Supreme Court hears its last two oral arguments of the term. First on the agenda is Quarles v. United States, which asks when a defendant must have formed the intent required to commit burglary for purposes of a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
On April 25 at 9 a.m. EST in Washington, D.C., the National Press Club will host the sixth annual “Home Stretch at the Supreme Court” panel discussion.
The transcript of oral argument in Quarles v. United States is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Taggart v. Lorenzen is also available.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. A lot of movement on the relist front this week. Most noteworthy of all, the Supreme Court granted the long–simmering trio of cases involving whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its opinion in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela. The transcript of the live blog is available below and at this link. SCOTUSblog is […]
An observer might be excused if she was confused by Monday’s oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media. The case concerns the application of the term “confidential” commercial or financial information in Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act to grocery-store data collected from transactions involving debit cards issued to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits recipients.
As it turns out, oral argument in Fort Bend County v. Davis was not the most headline-grabbing Title-VII-related news emanating from the Supreme Court yesterday.
Today is a rare three-argument day at the Supreme Court. This morning, the justices will hear 80 minutes of argument in one of the term’s marquee cases, Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
The transcript of oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Rehaif v. United States is also available.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in the dispute over the Trump administration’s decision to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census. The federal government says that the Department of Justice wants data about citizenship to better enforce federal voting rights laws.
Under Wisconsin law, anyone who drives on the state’s roads is assumed to have consented to have his blood tested for alcohol and drugs. The state’s laws also assume that a driver who is unconscious has not withdrawn that consent.
The transcript of oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
The Supreme Court this morning dismissed Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian a week after oral argument, passing on an opportunity to clarify the standard of liability under the securities laws for misleading disclosures about tender offers.
This morning, the justices heard 80 minutes of argument in one of the term’s highest-stakes cases, Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
Today is the oral argument in one of the term’s biggest cases, Department of Commerce v. New York, about the Trump administration’s efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. It is also a rare day for afternoon arguments, and rarer still because there will be two of those.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its decision in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, which the justices dismissed as improvidently granted. The transcript is available below and at this link. […]
This morning the court begins the last week of oral arguments for October Term 2018 with arguments in two cases. The first is Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, in which the court will interpret the term “confidential” in a Freedom of Information Act exemption.
[Editor’s Note: This post was updated at 11:50 a.m. to include discussion of CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Barton v. Barr and Putnam Investments v. Brotherston.]
The transcript of oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis is also available.
Scholars of the Supreme Court often debate the role of lawyers in Supreme Court decision-making. For an attitudinalist, the justices’ preferences make all (or at least most of) the difference.
In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly reviews the latest SCOTUS news before providing deeper coverage with Mark Walsh of last week’s oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti, a First Amendment challenge to the ban on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks.
The Supreme Court released orders from the April 18 conference on Monday; the justices agreed to decide Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., and Barton v. Barr.
Oyez has posted the aligned audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Iancu v. Brunetti Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust United States v. Davis McDonough v. Smith
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the constitutionality of invalidating a student-aid program because it affords students the choice of attending religious schools, whether the Fourth Amendment requires a caseworker who suspects
On its face, Department of Commerce v. New York asks whether the government may add a question about citizenship status to the 2020 decennial census.
The Supreme Court issued revisions to its rules today. The changes largely mirror the amendments proposed late last year, with one notable exception: Although the justices reduced the word limits for opening briefs on the merits, they left the existing word limits for reply briefs in place.
As Amy Howe reports for this blog, the court issued revisions to its rules yesterday that reduce the word limits for merits briefs and “require the parties to a case before the Supreme Court to identify any lower-court cases that are directly related to the Supreme Court proceedings.” At Bloomberg
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Parker Drilling Management Service, Ltd. v. Newton, a case about whether workers employed on drilling platforms more than three miles off the coast of California are entitled to the protections of California’s more worker-friendly wage-and-hours
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust. North Carolina hopes to convince the court that its method of taxing trusts, with jurisdiction based on an in-state beneficiary, passes constitutional muster.
Today the Supreme Court considered “the last Johnson domino to fall” (at least potentially). The case, United States v. Davis, involves the possible implications of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Johnson v. United States.
McDonough v. Smith, argued Wednesday, saw justices and attorneys repeating metaphors about heads spinning and constitutional rights swimming. The justices seemed inclined to rule for the petitioner (supported by the United States) that his claim was timely and that the limitations period on a civil action should not begin until favorable termination of criminal proceedings.
In 2013, police officers found Gerald Mitchell wet, shirtless and covered in sand on a beach in Sheboygan, Wisconsin.